Morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [2]

Subjective- [3]

1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Objective- [4]

1.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
2.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

o Observations

1.

A simple "definition" of morality is insufficient to understand the implications of such a controversial term. William H. Prescott succinctly paints the picture as, "Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [5]

Furthermore, Immanuel Kant argued that morality lies outside of the human subject. Rather, it is something that is inherently universal; humanity is an end as of itself, and morality is either given by nature or God. Either way, it is definitely NOT subjective. [6] He further attempts to define moral law through his formulation of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is derived from duty; categorical imperatives are intrinsically good, and are the demands of moral law which, of course, should be obeyed if we are to observe moral law. Finally, he accurately points out that moral law is a principle of reason, and it is for that reason precisely that morality is only applicable to rational agents; i.e. humans.

2.

I am going to make my position as clear as possible.

(A) Different PERCEPTIONS of morality exist.
(B) There is only one TRUE morality.
(C) On earth, different moral INTERPRETATIONS do not indicate an inconsistency in morality.
(D) Finally, we cannot, epistemologically speaking, derive morality, or know exactly what the formulation is for an objective moral code. We can, however, attempt to conform to it as much as possible, and can, as Kant would argue, rationally distinguish between an a moral and an amoral decision (we could not linguistically determine why, but we could rationally justify it).

o Arguments

I will keep it brief, for my opponent has yet to provide any arguments.

Morality CANNOT change. My opponent is going to argue that female circumcision is acceptable in some places and not others; my opponent will argue that abortion is acceptable in some places but not others. This all bears no weight upon my position for the reason that we can clearly observe that there are different interpretations of morality. Not one person can claim, either for or against abortion, that they are conforming to a moral code. They can provide their subjective *understanding* of it, but they cannot look up that, in Chapter 4, section IV.ii of the morality handbook, abortion is a violation of moral conduct.

At the end of the day, my opponent's burden is to prove that, factually speaking, morality is not a consistent code. In other words, spatial variation, as well as temporal variation, across a given domain (humanity, or rational agents) can result in a moral gradient. Further, she must prove that this gradient itself is objective. Finally, she must clearly distinguish between morality and moral interpretation.

I will likely be referring to Kant in my arguments, for he seems fitting for the case. With that, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and look forward to my opponent's argument.

I will begin with my view. My opponent wants me to make a difference between morality and moral interpretations. I believe there is no difference. Your own interpretations of what is moral and what is not is your morality. My opponent has not shown the difference from what I can see. Morality is so vague. All we know about it is that it is a "conformity to the rules of right conduct", but is there any definite way of knowing of what actions are moral and which ones aren't? No. Most religions claim to have a moral code but there is no agreement on what is moral and what is not moral on any action. My opponent argues that morality is universal. If this were so wouldn't we all have the same thoughts morally about everything? A person learns morality from its environment and from its reactions as it does everything else. You are told what is moral and what isn't from others and then form your own thoughts and opinions on it. You also learn morality from your own experiences and then interpret what you've experienced to form your own unique moral code. Because there is no absolute moral code, your own moral experiences must be your morality.

Responses:

"morality lies outside of the human subject." Where then does it lie? Human consciousness? Then why isn't there universal agreement on a moral code? With God? But if you look from an unbiased standpoint and look at all the religions that claim their moral code is the right one and disagree with each other, how can you know which one is right? No religion has more or less evidence than the other as to whether or not theirs is right. Also, within religions their moral views conflict. I know a priest who thinks being gay is immoral and another who claims there is nothing wrong with it.

"categorical imperatives" My opponent speaks a lot about these. I find this to be very vague. Could you explain what exactly these are and how they affect morality?

"(A) Different PERCEPTIONS of morality exist."- I agree.
"(B) There is only one TRUE morality."- Where do you find this? What is it?
"(C) On earth, different moral INTERPRETATIONS do not indicate an inconsistency in morality."- I disagree. I think different moral interpretations DOES indicate an inconsistency in morality. There is absolutely no final word on morality so your own beliefs must be your morality. My opponent wants to say difference in moral interpretations does not show inconsistency in morality. I say that it is the most important thing to consider in deciding whether morality is objective or subjective. If morality is formed by the person and people disagree on the same thing they are thinking about then morality is inconsistent.
"(D) Finally, we cannot, epistemologically speaking, derive morality, or know exactly what the formulation is for an objective moral code. We can, however, attempt to conform to it as much as possible, and can, as Kant would argue, rationally distinguish between an a moral and an amoral decision (we could not linguistically determine why, but we could rationally justify it)."-If we have no idea what the correct moral code is, how can we conform to it? Yes would could decide is a decision is moral or not, but would everyone agree with the decision? I doubt it. Like I said: Inconsistency.

"Morality CANNOT change." I disagree. My thoughts on what is moral and what isn't has changed as I've grown up and will change many times before I die. Has this not happened to you? I know people like pastors and other people who preach morals who have also changed their views during their lives. Not to mention society's and religion's stand on what is and isn't moral has changed though time.

"Not one person can claim, either for or against abortion, that they are conforming to a moral code. They can provide their subjective *understanding* of it, but they cannot look up that, in Chapter 4, section IV.ii of the morality handbook, abortion is a violation of moral conduct." Doesn't this support my point?

My point in a few words:
1. There is no absolute source to determine what is moral and amoral.
2. A person decides morality based on their experiences.
3. Nothing and no one agrees on morality completely.
4. If there is no way to know exactly what is moral and not, and a person decides on their moral interpretations from their experiences and no one universally agrees on what is moral and amoral, only what morality is, then morality must be derived solely from a person and is therefore subjective.

My opponent's view, in a nutshell, is the opposite to mine. Most of the points should be addressed by the Con case. Nonetheless, I'll address the explicit claims made.

"I believe there is no difference [between morality and moral interpretations]"

This depends upon religious orientation. It should be settled by the outcome of this debate; the con case attempts to prove my position.

"Morality is so vague."

I agree; in one sense- we cannot know what moral laws are, linguistically. E.g. you could not write a "law" that would have determined why Adolf Hitler should be killed. You have to make observations; hence the necessity of a rational agent.

"is there a definite way of knowing of what actions are moral and which ones aren't? No."

I would argue that there is; I will get into the categorical imperative later.

Going into the con case, note that I do believe there are different INTERPRETATIONS of morality.

o The Con case

1. Morality

Given by God or nature, morality is something that lies within all human beings. It is why people notice when someone "lacks a moral compass"; it is easy to distinguish a moral decision from another. For example, torturing innocent people and eating their children is immoral. There have been cases of such brutality, and anyone with a "moral compass" would tell you that they're morally misguided. Although the perpetrator would argue otherwise, it doesn't mean he has is own "morality". He has his own skewed interpretation, which is clearly wrong by any standard *through the categorical imperative*.

2. Moral inconsistency

My opponent is confused here; I will ask a few questions to help clarify. Using my opponent's answer, I will fix this problem

q1a) Can societies write their own laws?
q1b) Can societies write bad laws?
q2) Can a law that accurately abides by objective morality be written by humans?
q3) Are societies attempting to, by their own nature, reach their own best ends or interests?

o Elucidation on the Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant had three formulations on the categorical imperative. They can be found here [1] I will attempt to boil them down to the most important points.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
==> THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: THREE FORMULATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSALIZATION OF A MORAL CODE <==

<> FIRST FORMULATION <>

The first formulation of the categorical imperative (hereby referred to as CImp) "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature". Using the "universalisability test", we can determine if we have fulfilled the first formulation. The test contains 5 steps, which are:

(1)Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
(2)Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself.
(3)Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
(4)If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
(5)If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

I could not fathom any problems with maxims had they been written like this.

<> SECOND FORMULATION <>

The second formulation of the CImp holds "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends". In other words, the rational being must act as the limiting condition to all maxims in the sense that it is its own end of means; or rather, it (the rational agent) is both the means and the end. Held to this interpretation, all beings must be respected by maxims, since beings are the end of maxims.

<> THIRD FORMULATION <>

The third and final formulation of the CImp maintains that maxims be treated as though they would be universal law. In this "realm of ends", all laws would help us achieve the ultimate end, as no one would transcend a universal law. The third formulation is meant to be the determination of what all maxims should be. In a nutshell, we ought treat moral law like we would treat laws in the sense of the second and first formulations- laws that everyone should abide by, that arouse no contradictions or irrationalities, and that respect rational beings as the limiting end of maxims.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

o Summary

Given the CImp, we see that morality does make sense as an objective code. There are varying interpretations of it, but the majority of them would likely fail on at least 2 out of the 3 formulations provided by Kant.

My opponent, in lieu of this debate, has come to respect Kant's position. I await the response to the CImp, but aside from that I'm going to bed.

1. Morality
"morality is something that lies within all human beings." false. People such as psychopaths and sociopaths according to people who "have a moral compass" do not have one. Not to mention that this conflicts when you say that "anyone with a moral compass would tell you that they're morally misguided", thus implying that the perpetrator has no moral compass and therefore no morality. As for your example, the people you are talking about that "have a moral compass" think that doing those things is immoral. This is likely because in your version of morality, doing those things is wrong(as it is in mine). But, there are others(the perpetrator obviously for one), that would say that doing those things are perfectly moral. Since you have no authority to say that they are immoral in any other interpretation but your own since there is no definite moral compass that belongs to everyone, you must conclude that they have their own morality as we have ours.

2. Moral Inconsistency

I don't see where I am confused but alright.
q1a. yes.
q1b. yes.
q2. Irrelevant since we haven't proved objective morality is real.
q3. yes.

CImp.

I believe there is one big flaws in these assertions that negates a lot of the rest of it. I also don't see how this prove objective morality but maybe I am just not understanding it.

"(4)If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world." This is false. Every action, thought decision, will be irrational and rational and have a contradiction. There are at least two sides to everything. Not to mention that rationality is a human invention. Like morality, no one can absolutely say if something is rational or irrational. Therefore, once again, the rationality of something is up to your own interpretation. Plus, things that are generally thought of as irrational are permitted in the real world all the time.

The examples of psychopaths and sociopaths fall into the Con case, for they do have their own moral compass- simply, a very backwards one. OJ Simpson was a sociopath; I'm sure my opponent would agree that he understands, in some cases, what's right and what's wrong. Just to address the issue more holistically, anyways, Allah (in Islam) is the God that most people would expect to be "God". If you are born with a mental handicap, no matter how severe, you are guaranteed entry into heaven. At the very least, MY world has no problems in this sense.

2. Moral Inconsistency

I got exactly what I wanted. I'll put it into a syllogism.

P1) Societies attempt to reach their own best ends, or interests
P2) Societies write their own laws
P3) Societies can write bad laws
.:.

R1) Society attempts to achieve morality (from P1)
R2) Society can sometimes achieve the exact opposite of morality (from P3 and R1)
R3) Different societies have different perceptions of the same morality, even though they are polar opposites (from P1 and R2)

.:.

C) There are different "perceptions" of morality; at the same time, all "perceptions" of morality are looking for the same end- the best interest for society at hand.

3. The CImp

To address my opponent's opening remark, this conceptualization of a universal moral code alludes to an objective morality as demonstrated by the syllogism above regarding moral inconsistencies throughout society.

Further, my opponent's objection to (4) of the universalisability test fails under light scrutiny. She claims, "Every action, thought decision, will be irrational and rational and have a contradiction." She fails to provide an example; even if she did, she could not address the infinite examples of "actions, thoughts, and decisions". Her only bailout could be mathematical induction, but I doubt that it contains any degree of relevancy when it comes to morality.

I'll give an example of a universalisable categorical imperative, and the dish the rock back to Pro.

Let me begin by defining sociopath-"a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." (from dictionary.com)

1. Morality
"The examples of psychopaths and sociopaths fall into the Con case, for they do have their own moral compass- simply, a very backwards one." This implies that their moral code is opposite ours. This is not true. Sociopaths literally have no moral consciousness. They are neutral about every judgement of an action on its morality. They don't just think bad thing are good and good things are bad, they don't think that way. They only do things because it brings them pleasure of some kind. They do not understand right and wrong.

2. Moral Inconsistency
"R1) Society attempts to achieve morality (from P1)"- This is too broad a statement. I would say that the lawmakers will at the very least try to seem as if they are catering to the most common moral beliefs of the society.
"R2) Society can sometimes achieve the exact opposite of morality (from P3 and R1)"- This is again all up to interpretation. Some people may think the society is mostly very moral and others may think that it is very immoral.
"R3) Different societies have different perceptions of the same morality, even though they are polar opposites (from P1 and R2)"- What are they interpreting? You are speaking as if they are interpreting a bible or something.

Morality is merely the name we give to the code each of us tries to live by based upon our experiences and beliefs. We call this right and wrong based on this code we each developed differently. I have seen no evidence of a some kind of communal morality we all share.

Alright, to prove my point about (4), I will address your example. Contradictions and irrationalities lie within paradoxes. Questioning is a way to find a paradox.

INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY

1. How can any person be considered innocent? How would you ever know if they are innocent? Neither of these can ever be answered absolutely.

2. Also, what if killing people gratuitously brings you great pleasure? Isn't bringing yourself pleasure rational? Yet, people would say doing this is irrational. I would say if it brings you great pleasure it is not irrational. (I do not think it is right though)

Though I cannot pick apart every possibility, I bet that you can see that we could find these questions in anything. Everything is all up to interpretation since humans created the concepts and meanings.

This has still gotten us nowhere. Even if what my opponent is arguing is true, it doesn't disprove the idea that morality is objective; it simply would disprove that some people have no sense of morality. The two are not mutually exclusive.

2. Moral Inconsistency

My opponent does not realize that the trio of results all stem directly and logically from my opponent's granted premises. Nonetheless, I'll address them down the list.

R1) Even if this is too broad, it still follows from the definition of morality that, because they are attempting to achieve some ultimate good, they are attempting to conform to their interpretation of morality.

R2) This point can be extended for my opponent literally refuted what I was saying WITH what I was saying. She writes, "Some people may think the society is mostly very moral and others may think that it is very moral." I agree. Extend R2.

R3) They are interpreting what is their ultimate greatest good; again, this comes directly from my opponent's premises. We agree that societies attempt to write laws that are good for them, and from R2 we agree that they have different interpretations of the same good; for this reason, moral interpretations can be polar opposites, although they are trying to achieve the same thing.

My conclusion stands; everyone has an ideal "moral code" that they aim to achieve, although many of them may come up short or even on the wrong train track. This is sufficient reason to vote Con.

3. The CImp

This point stands through the debate, with the exception to the objection to a universalisable law, which I proposed and will addressed. After, that, there will be 3 fully valid reasons to vote Con.

==========> INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY <==========

Going down my opponent's points, and the questions of each point in order...

1. A baby fresh out of the womb is innocent. You know they are innocent because they were just born. These can be absolutely answered.

2. Pleasure is not a sufficient reason to gratuitously murder an infant; further, pleasure is never a good enough justification for anything when it comes to morality, which Immanuel Kant argues is only an issue for "rational beings". Rational beings make judgements based on reason and logic, as opposed to pleasure and emotion.
______________________________________________________________________________

4. Summary

Pro is left empty handed. With a distinction being made between moral inconsistency and morality itself, Pro's argument merely boils down to an agreement with my position, that being that an objective morality exists and which we attempt to align our lifestyles to through our own interpretations. Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative through three rock-solid formulations leaves us with a method by which we can approximately define a moral law or two.

It seems, given the content of the debate, a Con vote would line up nicely. I urge the readers to vote Con, and thank rogue for such a stimulating debate.

1. Morality
It does not disprove objective morality is false, but it does make it unlikely. If it were objective, would we not ALL have a sense of morality? Wouldn't we all also have the same views on morality?

2. Moral Inconsistencies
R1) I do not think that societies are necessarily attempting to achieve some ultimate good. In history, can you name one society that has seemed to? I said that when they write laws, they at least try to SEEM as if they are conforming to the most common views on morality. This does not mean that they are. You speak as if all people are just striving to be the best people they can. This is unrealistic. I think if morality was objective, this might be possible.

R2) I certainly did not agree with you. You want to ignore the biggest evidence that morality is subjective. You keep repeating that they are "interpreting", but you've also admitted that there is nothing to interpret, so how can your stance be accurate?

R3)"They are interpreting what is their ultimate greatest good" No. They have learned through their lives what they believe is the greatest good. It comes from nothing but their experiences. "We agree that societies attempt to write laws that are good for them" No. Like I said, they will SEEM to, but often leaders are corrupt and don't. "we agree that they have different interpretations of the same good". Again, I never agreed to that. There has been no evidence that people are interpreting anything. In history, there is no evidence that most people were striving to be as moral as possible. In fact, there is much more evidence that they conformed morals to justify their actions. Such as the Crusades, indulgences, polygamy, invading other countries. Now, some will think these things are moral because that is their morality; as in the morals they have developed through their experiences in their lives.

As for our example:

INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY

1. "A baby fresh out of the womb is innocent. You know they are innocent because they were just born." This is your and my belief, but not all peoples'. In some Christian religions, people believe that babies are born with "original sin" which comes from the story of Adam and Eve. This is why they developed baptisms to erase this. So as you can see there is so far no one that everyone can agree is innocent.

2. " Pleasure is not a sufficient reason to gratuitously murder an infant; further, pleasure is never a good enough justification for anything when it comes to morality" This is your opinion based on your morality. "Immanuel Kant argues is only an issue for "rational beings". Rational beings make judgements based on reason and logic, as opposed to pleasure and emotion." logic and reason are both human made concepts. So once again, deciding if someone is being reasonable or logical is an opinion. Decisions and actions are not governed or fueled by logic. Even if someone acted as you do, why would you do it? Because you would feel guilty about killing innocent people. You made a decision because of an emotion, yet you wish to say you are rational and by definition do not make decisions based on emotions which is a contradiction. The only way to communicate absolute logic is to speak in math terms. I can understand why someone would do something for pleasure alone, even if it is something as dramatic as killing children. I think in certain situations that people can be brought up in, they might think it is right to kill innocent people. Which explains why this happens in real life.

Con is being cocky. I have proved many of his points improbable where as he has failed to disprove any of mine. My point is that, like any other thought, morals are learned and developed during your life. There is so much research done on this, look it up, it is called behaviorology. Con is being much too idealistic about the human race. he says we are all striving to conform to some greater morality we all "interpret" in some way. There has been no evidence given of anything that we are all "interpreting". Also, if you merely think back to your history lessons, when has any society been trying to be as moral as possible? Most societies work to make things better for themselves or their leaders work to make things better for the leaders' sake. Con says Immanuel Kant's argument's are rock solid, yet I have rebutted them and Con has not proved my points false. Con wants to say that we all share some same morality and we all interpret it differently. I say we learn our own personal morality through our lives. I think I have proved my point. Make your choice voters.

"'categorical imperatives' My opponent speaks a lot about these. I find this to be very vague. Could you explain what exactly these are and how they affect morality?"

I think this pretty much sums up the debate. Con would have done well to point out the BoP issues. Pro's main argument on differing societal views on morality is basically a huge non-sequitur, and while Con realized this and incorporated it into his arguments, he never *explicitly* pointed it out. I think he missed a few opportunities to deliver a knockout punch, but overall this clearly belongs to Con.

@Tigg: The Categorical Imperative helps us determine individual laws. It is my position that it is humanely impossible to come up with a singular objective moral standard; however, moral laws can definitely be written, such as the one I wrote in the debate. Again, it is about universalizability of laws- for example, I'd argue that gratuitous murder is an absolute individual moral law. I'm not sure if you disagree, but if you do then I can't really do anything about that.

You know what I can't figure out? Why is it that nobody has developed a complete objective moral standard based on Kant's categorical imperative?

Could it have anything to do with the large number of variables that are actually involved in making a moral decision and the fact that different people put different values on different things due to their emotional and experiential perspectives?

I never said I was the judge. Ultimately, I would use the categorical imperative, which is by far the most objective (and IS objective) method to determine the morality or amorality of an action. You're just being biased against my position, which I don't appreciate.

Yeah well I don't wanna be a part of it, I find it kind of annoying when the debators keep going with the debate in the comments section. If the people who didn't debate want to thats totally cool though.